The Steady Rise of the Leftist Liberal Theology Cult

Strong language in a title I know, but it's not harsh nor over the top. How does it work & how is it going to work against us and be probably too late for many when they finally notice?

Here's the nutshell analogy, and when you consider it all perhaps spare a thought for the political party you vote for, or are a member of, or you hand out how-to-vote cards because this disease will creep in and eventually dominate political parties...if it hasn't already.

If you work for Australian Quarantine or Australian Customs you work in important government departments dealing with regulatory protection of Australia & border security enforcement. You get training & its ongoing but you also get training in the relevant Acts of Parliament. There's a reason for this, amongst the Legislation are all the rules & regulations you as an employee you adhere to and enforce. In effect, the Act not only guides you in your day to day work, it protects the employee. If you're adhering to the relevant Act & underlying regulations you have safe harbour.

The Act is the go-to-manual, its the reference document. Unure? Go there, done.
Don't lie or make assumptions, go there, check and adhere.

If on the other hand you're in an incorporated not-for-profit organisation or club and you are all debating, arguing or having an almighty & ungodly savage bunfight over what you should or shouldn't be doing as a group then first stop is the constitution. Its the "articles of association" or the rules about which you exist.

The constitution is the go-to-manual, its the reference document. Unsure? Go there, done.
Don't lie or make assumptions, go there, check and adhere.

So how has that been linked to say Same Sex Marriage (SSM)?

Here's a few examples.
On twitter, Aussie actor Rhys Muldoon made a simple, short tweet in support of SSM & homosexuality which gathered a great deal of support & applause. That's his twitter feed, he choose what he says. His choice. He said...

"Here's every single word Jesus said on homosexuality: "

And that was all he wrote, meaning Christ said nothing about homosexuality at all. With Rhys's staunch public defence of SSM & homosexuality I can only assume his tweet is aimed at Christians against SSM reminding them that the Christian Lord & Saviour never condemned homosexuality and Christians should follow their leader's example. It gathered a good deal of applause and supportive comments, likes etc.

Except...that premise fails on at least 2 grounds.
1) You can easily argue that Christ didn't mention a single word about bestiality...but pretty obvious thats a horrid sin to any Christian. Yes Peter Singer's atrocious and appalling comments on ABC's Q&A come to mind but the second argument against Rhys' comments (which he's not alone in expressing) are more compelling

2) Christ said a great deal about marriage and also about homosexuality. You just have to go read the Bible because...

The Bible is the go-to-manual, its the reference document. Unsure? Go there, done.
Don't lie or make assumptions, go there, check and adhere.
You actually only have to read the Gospels of Paul. He was one of the Apostle so when he was preaching, he was speaking God breathed Words, not his own but God's. Now who is "The Word"? Scripture is pretty clear, Christ is. So when Paul made comments it was Christ speaking via Paul.

So its pretty clear, Christ is not sanctioning nor allowing homosexuality, same sex marriage, adultery...none of it. He condemn homosexuality, called it sin.  Did He condemn people out of hate? No, love thy neighbour all the way but loving your neighbour does not equate to ignoring any & all sin they commit. In fact the Christians are clearly required to go out and make disciples of all nations, bring people to Christ which, if you go to the go-to-manual, the reference document means they accept Christ & turn away from their sins.

So really the Christian has no room to move. Its not their position, not their rules, not their opinion its actually instruction from God so any "christian" or "church" that sanctions or support homosexuality or SSM is not Christian at all. Their job is love one another and help others find Christ & turn from sin so they're saved...not condemn or heap hate upon anyone. Simple, and either not understood or deliberately omitted.

So a "church" like the Uniting Church which is gay affirming is not Christian.

Margaret Court may well be right in opposing SSM & homosexuality but she's a female pastor. That too is against the Christian Scripture. Hers is not a Christian church either. Ironically non Christians who are fevently pro SSM use the Scripture on the qualifications of Pastor to try & nullify her SSM comments. Quite odd seeing people who are devoutly anti-Christian pluck one section of Scripture they don't believe in, that suits their cause and hide or dismiss any others that oppose them.

The Uniting Church does go further as a false church though. It has several female "pastors" which apparently must be called "priests" and never never ever to be called "priestesses" because that conjures up dangerous connections to anti Christian practices like the occult, black magic, etc.

Enter the "reverend Avril Hannah-Jones" who is the priest/priestess of a Uniting Church on Australia's east coast. She's pro SSM. She's gay affirming. She's also stood at the alter of the church at a "science fiction" service and yes, she's even stood at the pulpit dressed as a witch. You know that occult black magic thing that the Bible says avoid at all costs. Interesting.

It gets weirder. Whilst she avoids Scripture that points against SSM she's openly claimed that due to her faith she is celibate even though Uniting Church doesn't require that. She openly explains she is a "celibate bi-sexual"

Now the Church of the Bible (and the Bible) doesn't allow same sex marriage, doesn't allow homosexuality, doesn't allow un-married anyone to be a pastor and doesn't allow women to be pastors. It also doesn't allow adultery which is sex outside marriage. You cannot be bi-sexual without committing adultery because you cannot be married to both a woman & a man.

Now if Avril actually opted to adhere to Scripture how would she be?
Resign as a priest/priestess. Call homosexuality a sin & turn away from it, call adultery a sin and turn away from it and turn to Christ as her Lord & Saviour, follow the Bible's teachings and join a church that is Berean in its teachings.

It all points to the current claimed "gay theology" which is really the doctrine of the Cult of Leftist Liberal Theology.

Whatever you want to do, is ok as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Anything is fine and using reference documents, go-to-manuals is optional and usually reserved only for those times when you're defending your own chosen behaviour that conflicts with others opposing the Liberal Cult.

Having said that, Seven Day Adventism, Jehovah Witnesses are actually as un Christian as Scientology. The Berean principle is to be like the Bereans who listening to preaching then check the Scriptures daily to see if it is so. Yeah, like...

The Bible is the go-to-manual, its the reference document. Unsure? Go there, done.
Don't lie or make assumptions, go there, check and adhere.

Then after all of this, the Leftist Liberals that are dotted amongst the churches and church leaders...they avoid totally uncomfortable bits of Scripture because at some point they're going to have to work out a way to loudly demand God apologise to Sodom & Gomorrah.

So, homosexuality is not supported nor sanctioned by Scripture and we shouldn't pretend it is. Should the church attack & condemn LBGTI people? Nope, not at all, not ever. Bible is clear on what the church should do.

This entire example of the Leftist Liberal Theology Cult is also what has delivered us into several big messes around the globe, where people don't check facts, don't use facts and use what's now called "alt-facts" or alt-truth & fake news...resorting to facts only when it supports their predetermined positions & views.

Am I 100% right and totally sin free? Not even close. But I don't twist Scripture to get a point or falsely close down a view I find uncomfortable or confronting. We're entering an age where its increasingly the case that rules are there for the twisting and only to be applied when catching someone of a different view.

Some people are entirely ok with breaking the law because it suits them, it benefits them or it profits them. They may be guilty of breaking the law, but when caught more criminals don't feel guilty for their actions. They're sorry, but not all are sorry for their actions, just sorry they got caught.

This is the age we've been in for centuries but now its becoming more and more mainstream.
You can thank Post Modernism, Relative Truth and Subjective (disposable) morals.

Donald Trump isn't to blame for everything, but post modernism's alt-facts, alt-truth and optional relative morals got him into office. When standards are optional this is what you get.
Ironically the hard core Leftist Liberals oppose Trump the most, but its their Cult Doctrine that ushered him in.

If you're in a political party, a club or a Not-For-Profit organisation you're going to see optional adherence to reference documents & go-to-manuals...your constitution and/or board charters.

Edward DeBono called it Arrogance Arguing where people will hide a fact that demolishes their position. Why be right when you can win is becoming mainstream and standards are slowly being viewed as shackles against freedom.

Its in religion, politics, the workplace and everyday life. Perhaps it always has been.
Try finding a solution and installing it.
You'll be as popular as ants at a picnic.

Is Western Australia Seceding Possible and/or Likely

Anything is possible but whether its likely is another thing entirely. One thing is certain, its a notion or sentiment that is gathering support slowly. Between the Fed & State elections a grazier I know offered me a not insignificant amount of money if I start a WA Secede Party. Not a payment to me, a payment to help bankroll such a party. I didn't take it seriously but this chap assured me the big cheque was but a pen stroke away.

He was very serious it seems and it got me thinking its a sentiment that has slowly been growing for a good deal of time. Now interesting was I mentioned it when have a beer n BBQ gathering and 2 people then said they'd match it dollar for dollar. One of them a Labor entrenched true believer.

It is a serious sentiment that's gathering traction however most of its first glance decision making.

There's a lot to consider, defence and border protection and a large number of other processes and laws. The simple answer is we adopt all that is transferable from the Federal legislative sphere to a new State realm rather easily...well without re-inventing the wheel in entirety.
I'd be more interested in the east coast reaction. With the 2 big parties being very eastern seaboard centric I'd expect it would not be embraced.

Is it a mechanism to shake the east into a new found realm of genuine fairness and equity across all borders? Yes, but only if we in WA were actually dead serious about breaking away from the rest of the commonwealth of Australia. It then becomes murky, is it a separate nation in the Commonwealth of Nations as we know it or is it to be a distinctly separate sovereign state?

WANationals have picked up on the deep discord in WA with the powers that be that are clearly very eastern centric and have begun discussing options. Lots to unfold, lots to consider and where it'll land no one knows. Upside is, one party is listening and I now beginning to look at options, potential outcomes vs potential consequences.

With us not capitalising or rather being very much denied the right to fully capitalise on our mineral wealth this sort of discord is plainly valid and expected.

Next BBQ avoid getting money raised, get the topic raised and get it discussed. Think out the options, think out the benefits and the negative consequences.

It might amount to naught, but WA decided to divide once before & now I have to research why it didn't happen.

Til then, Think Seriously and talk to friends. Go deeper than jut distrust of the east.

4 Women At The Helms Of 2 Rudders

Yes, it's a milestone moment for the WANats, a very significant milestone.

Mia Davies & Jacqui Boydell at the helm of the National WA Parliamentary Team and now with Heather York & Siobhan Blake at the helm of the Young Nationals.

No one should underplay or dismiss this as being anything less than a milestone moment on the political landscape. IT IS A BIG DEAL. But then WA has had more than its fair share of firsts. Women have played a big role in the Nationals with some very notable ladies being highly regarded party elders over the decades and there's a number of brilliant contributors to the National's working and cultural fabric who work at delegate and branch level.

Its true we do live in an age where arrogance & narcissism are used as forms of confidence drivers to propel the individual to success. Its these forms of ruthlessness that are common among some high achievers. Its the age of Kadashian effect where effectiveness and actual contribution comes a poor second in the race for the prize. And its this sad effect in modern society that pushes some people, with great velocity towards selfish gain or demise.

With all the negative influences in the world, for many decades its probably now more than ever a time when we all should re-evaluate what it is we want to see in our leaders & future leaders. For many of them, finding mentors is isn't easy. In a time when mentors are thin on the ground but professional high paid life coaches or success drivers are thick at every corner post we need to ensure our ranks are filled with young people with older heads who can find good mentors who are experienced and like to frame things with fairness and integrity.

Often the case we hear about glass ceilings, but sadly in the past the first woman through the ceiling reinstalled the floor to keep others out from diminishing their elevated position. Could this be? Yes, there's a list longer than my arm of women who had the sorry position of seeing the prize closer and realising the fairness had arrived for one and not others. We hope those days are too diminishing.

The upside with the Nats positions is it wasn't a result of a decided quota. It was merit based. 4 people are elected to the respective positions and as it turns out, coincidentally they happen to be women. Being female wasn't met criteria.

Now sadly some organisations are addressing the lack of gender balance in a way that has actually hampered it. Some women, thankfully few, have been wrong regarded or referred to as "Quota Queens". Perhaps this is accurate, perhaps it isn't but hopefully its declining too. One thing is certain, there are many employment positions that don't attract equal numbers of women applying so we'd expect that statistically women might be represented in smaller numbers. What we hope to see is not quotas but equal opportunity.

I don't think we're going to see a flood of 50% for every job to be listed but if we can see equal opportunity we'll all be better off.

I'm not pro nor anti feminist. Feminist as a definition seems to have changed a bit over the decades so I'm just pro equal go for anyone wanting to have a go, and pro them getting a fair go.

That's happened with these four positions within the WA Nationals. What I'm hoping we'll see across the society is more women will feel confident & relaxed in their own abilities and have good mentors of integrity & fairness backgrounding who can encourage women of any age to gather the skills they need and to throw their hat into whatever ring they're eyeing. Hopefully good mentors will be around to build their confidence, help them with direction when gathering skills and understanding process.

Many people both male & female have sought positions they didn't fully understand.

If you know a young person who might be keen on progressing, get behind them. Encourage them and urge them to get a couple of mentors with diverse skills and a positive attitude.

Heather & Siobhan are new to their roles but no stranger to its requirements so they'll be fine and spaces to watch over the decades. Mia & Jacqui are both younger than me so I expect them to have more than a few decades of achievements ahead of them as well but they already have big runs on the board.

Both Mia & Jacqui announced they're keen to help young women achieve their goals and fulfil their aspirations. That's not a gender leaning, its addressing an imbalance with an aim to help encourage young people and allow them a fair go. 6 gold stars out of 5.
Looking from the outside as a bloke some women have had to conquer their own confidence levels that were well below their capabilities. Selling themselves short has been a problem for many.

Confidence & integrity are paramount, well short of arrogance and narcissism is what we need and appears that's how WA, especially regional WA has been tracking for some time. A ways to go, but I think we can see first signs of true fair go ethos rising to the top. It will require vigilance to prevent slippage and loss of traction but I remain confident we're heading to a better place albeit slowly.